Interesting News article

[Chemnitz]

The accidents of the bread and wine remain whereas the substance (from "sub" = "under" and "sto" = "stand") changes into the resurrected God-man's body, blood, soul, and divinity.

Accidentals and true physical presence are not one in the same. If I am remembering my Aristotilian physics correctly accidentals is only the form not the substance. transsub. went way to far in its explanation of the Presence. It should also be noted that transsub. did not come about until Aquinas' works were published.

Since Jesus is really present alongside the bread and wine according to your Lutheran tradition, do you have Eucharistic Adoration? Would you concur with Augustine that not to adore the Eucharist would be to sin?

No we do not have Eucharistic Adoration. First because adoration is not its intended use, it was given to us to eat and drink. Second, one can not pin point the exact moment as to when the body and blood are truly present. I would say to adore the Eucharist is a sin, because you are misusing a gift from God.

 

[trying2understand]

Originally posted by Dualhunter:
If James is the son of Joseph but not of Mary, there is no real basis to call him the brother of Jesus. If on the other James is the son of Mary and therefore half brother of Jesus, there is a basis to call him the brother of Jesus because the two share a common parent.

"Brother" was also used to refer to cousins and uncles in that day. Your "no real basis to call him brother of Jesus" doesn't fly.

Step-brothers, half-brothers, what ever, would have all been refered to as "brother".

Whatever happened to historical context?

Ron

 

[LaRae]

Chemnitz,

You said:

"No we do not have Eucharistic Adoration. First because adoration is not its intended use, it was given to us to eat and drink. Second, one can not pin point the exact moment as to when the body and blood are truly present. I would say to adore the Eucharist is a sin, because you are misusing a gift from God."

------------------
No it isn't a sin, when the consecration takes place you are in the presence of God. We are not adoring a piece of cracker....we are adoring God.

LaRae

 

[Chemnitz]

No it isn't a sin, when the consecration takes place you are in the presence of God. We are not adoring a piece of cracker....we are adoring God.

That doesn't negate the fact that you are misusing it by worshiping the host rather than eating it as intended.

 

[trying2understand]

Originally posted by Chemnitz:
That doesn't negate the fact that you are misusing it by worshiping the host rather than eating it as intended.

Chemnitz, what happens to the unconsumed consecrated bread and wine after the service?

 

[LaRae]

Chemnitz,

You said:

"That doesn't negate the fact that you are misusing it by worshiping the host rather than eating it as intended"

-----------------------------
Adoring God is misuse now? Well that's a new one. Also we don't "eat" the Eucharist.....we receive the body and blood of our Lord....we aren't sitting down to a steak dinner.

LaRae

 

[Chemnitz]

Adoring God is misuse now? Well that's a new one. Also we don't "eat" the Eucharist.....we receive the body and blood of our Lord....we aren't sitting down to a steak dinner.

Adoring the host is misuse of the sacrament. Also there is no concrete evidence as to when the body and blood become present.
If you don't eat it then how do you recieve it?
By worshiping the host you are misusing it because it was not given for people to worship, it was given for people to eat and drink in faith. It does no good for you if you just bow before it.

Chemnitz, what happens to the unconsumed consecrated bread and wine after the service

Depends on the piety of the congregation, some pour it on the ground, some the pastor eats and drinks the leftovers, and some reuse it.

 

[trying2understand]

Posted by trying2understand:
Chemnitz, what happens to the unconsumed consecrated bread and wine after the service?

Posted by Chemnitz:
Depends on the piety of the congregation, some pour it on the ground, some the pastor eats and drinks the leftovers, and some reuse it.

Is it considered to be no longer consecrated?

If it is retained for use at a later date, how is it stored?

Ron

 

[GraceSaves]

Chemnitz,

Your argument is moot. Jesus never once told his followers to worship Him, and yet you worship Him daily no doubt. Therefore, since Jesus is present in the Eucharist (moreso, He IS the Eucharist), and we worship Jesus, then this is not sinful. It's adoration of our One, True God.

At our LCMS congregation, the leftover wine from the cups was washed down the regular sink. Obviously, they don't believe He is present there anymore. And if it was dropped on the ground and stepped on, there wasn't much of a fuss. Obviously, they didn't believe He was present at that time.

So...you can tell us when you know He's not there, but we can't tell you that we know when He is there? Pretty two-faced.

And while we don't know the exact MOMENT, we do know that after the words of consecration, Jesus is present. Jesus said, "This is My body," and THEN gave it to them to eat. He didn't say, "When you drink this, this is my body." Therefore, when the words are spoken, Christ becomes present. At that point, we are beholding the presence of Jesus Christ, and Jesus is to be adored.

God bless,

Grant

 

[Carson Weber]

Hi Jason,

I tried to follow your post, but you completely lost me. I couldn't figure out how I belittled Keith through your complicated explanation, and I apologize for any misunderstanding I may have caused. Also, Chemnitz is not "Colin", who is Australian Baptist Student. Chemnitz is "Keith" - we went to college together but didn't know eachother when we were there. Though, he did work with a friend of mine at the campus library.

Also, if you have a problem with what I post in the future, please address me personally. I'm right here. My email address is carson@boerne.com if you would prefer to email me. Okay? Thanks.

Blessings,

Carson

[ October 23, 2002, 06:03 PM: Message edited by: Carson Weber ]

 

[Carson Weber]

Hi Colin,

Hi, thanks for your quick response!

You're welcome.

I read through two of the sites, but could find no Scriptural reasons why Mary had to be a perpetual virgin.

In Jerome's treatise "Against Helvidius", which I gave the link to at http://www.ccel.org/fathers/NPNF2-06/treatise/mary.htm - Jerome systematically goes through the arguments against Mary's perpetual virginity and defends the universal teaching of the Christian (i.e. "Catholic") Church in his time.

Jerome maintains that Joseph was only putatively, not really, the husband of Mary, the "brethren" of the Lord were his cousins, not his own brethren, and that virginity is better than the married state. He shows how all three propositions are entirely Biblical - being the most austere and learned Biblical scholar of his day.

The Fathers recognized that Mary had made this vow of virginity from both Tradition and Scripture. The key Scripture verse is Luke 1:34 where Mary responds to the angel Gabriel with "How shall this be, since I know not man?"

Mary's response does not make sense without having taken a vow of virginity. She's betrothed to Joseph, right? Well, all she has to do is have conjugal relations with Joseph, and "whala!" the angel's proclamation will come true: "you will conceive in your womb and bear a son...". But Mary says essentially, "Angel Gabriel, I don't understand, how can this happen? I don't have relations with man?"

If Mary hadn't taken a vow of virginity, then she would seem either uneducated or pretty slow intellectually. Come on, Mary, look around! Your man whom you will "know" pretty soon is in the next room!

Isn't this a surprise? Not for Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, or the three main Reformers, or John Wesley.

God bless,

Carson

 

[Chemnitz]

At our LCMS congregation, the leftover wine from the cups was washed down the regular sink. Obviously, they don't believe He is present there anymore. And if it was dropped on the ground and stepped on, there wasn't much of a fuss. Obviously, they didn't believe He was present at that time.

So...you can tell us when you know He's not there, but we can't tell you that we know when He is there? Pretty two-faced.

Its not so much as left as it is quite possible He was never there because the host wasn't eaten.

And it is misuse because Holy Communion was instituted to be eaten not looked at, the gift is of no use unless it is recieved in faith.

[ October 23, 2002, 07:38 PM: Message edited by: Chemnitz ]

 

[GraceSaves]

Originally posted by Chemnitz:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />At our LCMS congregation, the leftover wine from the cups was washed down the regular sink. Obviously, they don't believe He is present there anymore. And if it was dropped on the ground and stepped on, there wasn't much of a fuss. Obviously, they didn't believe He was present at that time.

So...you can tell us when you know He's not there, but we can't tell you that we know when He is there? Pretty two-faced.

Its not so much as left as it is quite possible He was never there because the host wasn't eaten.

And it is misuse because Holy Communion was instituted to be eaten not looked at, the gift is of no use unless it is recieved in faith.</font>[/QUOTE]So what you're saying is that Jesus is not present in the bread in wine...until the bread and wine is in your stomach? Could you please give me the Scripture verse where this is stated? Otherwise, you don't know, and so your guess is as good as the Catholic Church's guess. And since I believe my Church to be an infallible teacher, as instituted by Jesus Christ, and yours is not, I'm gonna bet on my Church to hold the truth.

Second, if it's Jesus, which you believe it is, how exactly can you morally look upon Him and not worship and and adore Him? Even if it's when it's put in your hands. Do you not hold the Body of Christ in your hands?

When the pastor places the bread in your hands, he says, "The Body of Christ." That means what he is handing you is the Body of Christ. You believe bread is there also, but that means Jesus is physically there also. You would deny Him worship, when he is proclaimed to be there?

God bless,

Grant

 

[Chemnitz]

So what you're saying is that Jesus is not present in the bread in wine...until the bread and wine is in your stomach? Could you please give me the Scripture verse where this is stated? Otherwise, you don't know, and so your guess is as good as the Catholic Church's guess. And since I believe my Church to be an infallible teacher, as instituted by Jesus Christ, and yours is not, I'm gonna bet on my Church to hold the truth.

Actually I am going to bet that the there is an equal chance that the RCC is wrong.
I don't know the exact moment when the Christ is present, although I obviously lean towards completed use of the sacrament. I really don't even care, because it is not really that important. I just rely on His promise that He is there.

When the pastor places the bread in your hands, he says, "The Body of Christ." That means what he is handing you is the Body of Christ. You believe bread is there also, but that means Jesus is physically there also. You would deny Him worship, when he is proclaimed to be there?

I don't deny Christ any worship, but I also at the same time do not misuse the gift that He has given me by adoring it. If it had been meant for adoration Christ would not have told us to "Take and eat" Mt 26:26, he would of told us to take and adore. So to use it in any other way would be and is grievous.

I'm gonna bet on my Church to hold the truth.

Oh I forgot the Roman curia holds primacy over Christ.

 

[Dualhunter]

Originally posted by trying2understand:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Dualhunter:
If James is the son of Joseph but not of Mary, there is no real basis to call him the brother of Jesus. If on the other James is the son of Mary and therefore half brother of Jesus, there is a basis to call him the brother of Jesus because the two share a common parent.

"Brother" was also used to refer to cousins and uncles in that day. Your "no real basis to call him brother of Jesus" doesn't fly.

Step-brothers, half-brothers, what ever, would have all been refered to as "brother".

Whatever happened to historical context?

Ron</font>[/QUOTE]In the case of an uncle or cousin, James would not be both the son of Joseph and the brother of Jesus.

 

[Carson Weber]

Hi Keith,

You wrote, "I don't know the exact moment when the Christ is present, although I obviously lean towards completed use of the sacrament."

If you were a Catholic, the answer would be simple. When the last syllable of "This is my body" is pronounced.

Jesus said, "This is my body" as he held up the bread. That should be evidence enough. Look at what Jesus is holding and look at what he is saying. That is his body then and there.

Jesus does not say, "Take, eat, this is bread and will be my body when you consume it" or "Take, eat, this is both bread and my body somehow mixed up together."

You wrote, "I really don't even care, because it is not really that important. I just rely on His promise that He is there."

You should care because if the substance of the bread and wine becomes Jesus Christ, then we are speaking of an incomparable, incredible, awesome miracle, and it is right to give the Eucharistic Lord thanks and praise. The Real Presence of our Eucharistic Lord is abundantly important, and I fail to understand how anyone can think lightly of the issue.

St. Augustine said, "It was in His flesh that Christ walked among us and it is His flesh that He has given us to eat for our salvation. No one however eats of this flesh without having first adored It ... and not only do we not sin in thus adoring, but we would sin if we did not adore." (Sermon 174, 7)

God bless,

Carson

[ October 23, 2002, 11:49 PM: Message edited by: Carson Weber ]

 

[trying2understand]

Originally posted by Chemnitz:
Its not so much as left as it is quite possible He was never there because the host wasn't eaten.

Jesus is only present in the host if (or when) it is eaten?

Is this a teaching of your church or is this a conclusion that you have reached on your own?

If a host is reserved after the service to take to a homebound person, is Jesus present from the service until it is consumed at a later date?

If yes, then you are being inconsistent.

If no, then it appears that the presence of Jesus in the host is not connected to the service but to the eating of the host. In that case, can you have Communion at home by simply eating bread?

Do you see the theological problems that you are creating?

Ron

 

[Briguy]

Hey all, great conversation so far. I see something missing though. Jesus said that, where two or more of you are gathered in my name there I am also. (Taken from my head not the verse but anybody can feel free to post the verse) If at any gathering we are gathering in the name and for the sake of Jesus Christ, he is already there. He doesn't come at the point of communion, His prensence already abides. He doesn't need to make his presence known in some kind of physical way through the elements, he is simply right there already. That thought just came to me so if this post did not seem well thought out it's because it wasn't But that doesn't make it any less of an issue to consider.

In Christ,
Brian

 

[trying2understand]

Originally posted by Dualhunter:
In the case of an uncle or cousin, James would not be both the son of Joseph and the brother of Jesus.

Dualhunter, are you deliberately missing the point?

"Brother" was used to refer to more than simply siblings of the same parents.

"Brother" would have also applied to step-brothers and half-brothers (as well as uncles and cousins).

If you disagree, simply give me the Aramaic word for step-brother and the Aramaic word for half-brother.

Hint: you are not going to be able to come up with one.

Ron

 

[Chemnitz]

Jesus is only present in the host if (or when) it is eaten?

Is this a teaching of your church or is this a conclusion that you have reached on your own?

If a host is reserved after the service to take to a homebound person, is Jesus present from the service until it is consumed at a later date?

Actually the official position is we don't know when, there is no way to know for sure, we don't care when. The important part is Christ promised his real physical presence.

The important issue is the misuse of sacrament when people only sit and "adore" the host. It was given to be injested not looked at.

Do you not see the theological problems your beliefs have caused? I mean you have people thinking they recieve grace just from looking at the host and/or just by being present when the host is consecrated.

[ October 24, 2002, 11:18 AM: Message edited by: Chemnitz ]